Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Findings on whether annulment of title and partition can be done in one proceeding?

G.R. No. 187524 August 5, 2015

SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG and VILLAFRlA, DR. RUEL B. SPOUSES MARIA FRANCISCO
substituted by VILLAFRIA, Petitioners,
vs.
MA. GRACIA RINOZA PLAZO and MA. FE RINOZA ALARAS, Respondents.

ISSUE: Whether or not Court of Appeals erred in not holding RTC acted without jurisdiction
in entertaining the SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE of Pedro and the
CIVIL ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF TITLE of the heirs and third persons in ONE
PROCEEDING?

SC Ruling: : NO. Based on the nature of suit and allegations therein, the reliefs prayed for, the
action is clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title and recovery of
possession.

Petitioner asserts that while the complaint filed by respondents was captioned as "Judicial
Partition with Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession," the allegations therein show
that the cause of action is actually one for settlement of estate of decedent Pedro.
Considering that settlement of estate is a special proceeding cognizable by a probate court
of limited jurisdiction while judicial partition with annulment of title and recovery of
possession are ordinary civil actions cognizable by a court of general jurisdiction, the trial
court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the latter while it was sitting merely in its
probate jurisdiction. This is in view of the prohibition found in the Rules on the joiner of
special civil actions and ordinary civil actions. Thus, petitioner argued that the ruling of the
trial court is void and has no effect for having been rendered in without jurisdiction.

XXX

Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents' causes of action pertaining to


the properties left behind by the decedent Pedro, his known heirs, and the nature and
extent of their interests thereon may fall under an action for settlement of estate. However,
a complete reading of the complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of the
suit, the allegations therein, and the relief’s prayed for, the action, is clearly one for judicial
partition with annulment of title and recovery of possession

XXX
In this relation, Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. - A person having the right to
compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his
complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of
which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the
property.

As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the allegations of respondents in their
complaint are but customary, in fact, mandatory, to a complaint for partition of real estate.
Particularly, the complaint alleged: (1) that Pedro died intestate; (2) that respondents,
together with their co-heirs, are all of legal age, with the exception of one who is
represented by a judicial representative duly authorized for the purpose; (3) that the heirs
enumerated are the only known heirs of Pedro; (4) that there is an account and description
of all real properties left by Pedro; (5) that Pedro's estate has no known indebtedness; and
(6) that respondents, as rightful heirs to the decedent’s estate, pray for the partition of the
same in accordance with the laws of intestacy. It is clear, therefore, that based on the
allegations of the complaint, the case is one for judicial partition. That the complaint alleged
causes of action identifying the heirs of the decedent, properties of the estate, and their
rights thereto, does not perforce make it an action for settlement of estate.

It must be recalled that the general rule is that when a person dies intestate, or, if testate,
failed to name an executor in his will or the executor named is incompetent, or refuses
the trust, or fails to furnish the bond equipped by the Rules of Court, then the decedent's
estate shall be judicially administered and the competent court shall appoint a qualified
administrator to the order established in Section 6 of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court. An
exception to this rule, however, is found in the aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 74 wherein
the heirs of a decedent, who left no will and no debts due from his estate, may divide the
estate either extrajudicially or in an ordinary action or partition without submitting the
same for judicial administration nor applying for the appointment of an administrator by
the court. The reasons that where the deceased dies without pending obligations, there is
no necessity for the appointment of an administrator to administer the Estate for them
and to deprive the real owners of their possession to which they are immediately entitled.

In this case, it was expressly alleged in the complaint, and was not disputed, that Pedro died
without a will, leaving his estate without any pending obligations. Thus, contrary to
petitioner’s contention, respondents were under no legal obligation to submit the subject
properties of the estate of a special proceeding for settlement of intestate estate, and are,
in fact, encouraged to have the same partitioned, judicially or extrajudicially, by ereira v.
Court of Appeals:

Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court, however, does not preclude the heirs
from instituting administration proceedings, even if the estate has no· debts or
obligations, if they do not desire to resort for good reasons to an ordinary action for
partition. While Section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among themselves as they
may see fit, or to resort to an ordinary action for partition, the said provision does not
compel them to do so if they have good reasons to take a different course of action. It
should be noted that recourse to an administration proceeding even if the estate has no
debts is sanctioned only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an action for
partition. Where partition is possible, either in or out of court, the estate should not be
burdened with an administration proceeding without good and compelling reasons.

Thus, it has been repeatedly held that when a person dies without leaving pending
obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the
property to a judicial administration, which is always long and costly, or to apply for the
appointment of an administrator by the Court. It has been uniformly held that in such case
the judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator are superfluous and
unnecessary proceedings.

Thus, respondents committed no error in filing an action for judicial partition instead of a
special proceeding for the settlement of estate as law expressly permits the same. That
the complaint contained allegations inherent in an action for settlement of estate does not
mean that there was a prohibited joined of causes of action for questions as to the estate's
properties as well as a determination of the heirs, their status as such, and the nature and
extent of their titles to the estate, may also be properly ventilated in partition proceedings
alone. In fact, a complete inventory of the estate may likewise be done during the partition
proceedings, especially since the estate has no debts.~ Indeed, where the more expeditious
remedy of partition is available to the heirs, then they may not be compelled to submit to
administration proceedings, dispensing of the risks of delay and of the properties being
dissipated.

Moreover, the fact that respondents' complaint also prayed for the annulment of title and
recovery of possession does not strip the trial court off of its jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case. Asking for the annulment of certain transfers of property could very well be
achieved in an action for partition, as can be seen in cases where courts determine the
parties' rights arising from complaints asking not only for the partition of estates but also
for the annulment of titles and recovery of ownership and possession of property.

XXX

In view of the foregoing, petitioner' s argument that the trial court acted without
jurisdiction in entertaining the action of settlement of estate and annulment of title in a
single proceeding is clearly erroneous for the instant complaint is precisely one for judicial
partition with annulment of title and recovery of possession, filed within the confines of
applicable law and jurisprudence. Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 (RA
7691), amending Batas Pambansa Big. 129, the RTC shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Since the action herein was not merely for partition and recovery of
ownership but also for annulment of title and documents, the action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation and thus cognizable by the RTC. Hence, considering that the trial
court clearly had jurisdiction in rendering its decision, the instant petition for annulment of
judgment must necessarily fail.

XXX

To repeat, the action filed herein is one for judicial partition and not for settlement of
intestate estate. Consequently, that respondents also prayed for the annulment of title
and recovery of possession in the same proceeding does not strip the court off of its
jurisdiction for asking for 'the annulment of certain transfers of property could very well
be achieved in an action for partition.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen